Apparently, the issue of a “dress code” or “decorous clothing” seems to have gone bye-bye in, of all places, Britishland (and to be specific, in Parliament). Witness this outfit chosen by a Labour MP (of course) to deliver a speech in the House of Commons:
I know, I know, dear Tracy; perhaps you weren’t any of those things — it just looked like you were all of them. Of course, you were an actress once, which pretty much explains everything.
And just so we’re all clear on the implications of this: had Boris Johnson not won the last General Election, this harridan would now be a member of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet.
And all this time, I thought that Our Neighbors To The North were supposed to be the good guys. Apparently not:
Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault’s mandate letter includes regulations targeting the removal of illegal online content “harms such as radicalization, incitement to violence, exploitation of children, or creation or distribution of terrorist propaganda.”
Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault’s mandate letter
Firms such as Facebook or Twitter would be required to remove such content within 24 hours or face punishment.
If that seems a bit vague, it is because the definition of “illegal content” is not yet set, but according to iPolitics, Minister Guilbeault has said he will be meeting with Justice Minister David Lametti to clearly define it.
Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has done a 180-degree turn on comments suggesting media organisations would be forced to have government licences after a huge backlash.
Minister Guilbeault clarified his and the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stance on the matter, saying that the government had no intention to force media companies to require licenses to operate in Canada, CTV reports.
After stating that the Liberal minority government “has no intention to impose licensing requirements on news organizations, nor would we try to regulate news content,” Guilbeault went on to add the government would not decide on what would be considered a news organisation either.
Yeah, I believe that like I believe any Marxist bastard’s lies. If I were a betting man, I’d take short odds on the Liberal apparatchiks having a whole bunch of ways to do all that, anyway.
As the man said (and I paraphrase): if you think you live in a free society, see who you can’t criticize or satirize; if it’s the government or any other powerful institution, then guess what? You don’t.
I know my Canucki Readers are not of this ilk, but they are no doubt still too nice to avail themselves of my usual solution to Marxism:
Conservatives and moderates are the most unhappy with the state and most anxious to leave. Liberals, by contrast, are mostly staying put, and some think life in California is just great. Only 38 percent of Democrats said that they were considering leaving, compared with 55 percent of independents and 71 percent of Republicans. Similarly, those characterizing themselves as “somewhat liberal” were least likely to say that they want to go—fewer than four in ten are considering leaving. But 53 percent of moderates, 66 percent of the “somewhat conservative,” and 74 percent of the “very conservative” would like to migrate. Political affiliation, in fact, was more of a predictor of who wants to go or stay than other demographic information, such as race.
I think that the longtime residents of Colorado (to name just one state infested with ex-Californians) might beg to differ with Malanga’s thesis — and I think I know the problem.
Basically, “conservative” Californians coming to, say, Texas probably aren’t conservative at all. Compared to other Californians, they might be; compared to conservative Texans, they’re probably more like moderate Democrats. And the way to establish the truth of this is to find out if during their first year in a new state, these Cali-expats bought a gun (if they didn’t bring any with them). If they didn’t buy a gun, they failed the first unofficial test of conservative American citizenship.
This kills me. I have very dear relatives who are lifelong Californians, and are making serious plans to leave the state. They are probably more conservative than I am, and are staunch gun owners to boot. But I’m positive that Uncle Mike and The Angel In Human Form are in no way representative of these modern Joads-in-reverse.
More’s the pity.
P.S. The above-mentioned relatives (much to my chagrin) are not moving to Texas because of the heat. But let’s just say that the political makeup of one of the mountain states is about to become a lot more conservative.
…and I don’t wanna hear any guff about “DIVERSITEH!” either. Not when a Jew, two Italians and a token WASP are involved. And we also have “WOMYNS!” such as Florida hottie Pam Bondi and Jane Raskin, among others.
If that’s not a diverse bunch, then we’re all in deep trouble.
“So, the idea we’re gonna cut the defense budget significantly, we can cut it some, but we don’t need standing armies, we need to be smarter than we’re dealing now into how we handle this.”
Of course, the general consensus is all about national defense and blah blah blah.
Here’s my question for the Has-Been VP, though:
If you have no standing army, how the hell do you propose to disarm the American public and confiscate all those eeeevil black assault rifles?
No doubt he and the other Communist presidential wannabes would probably want to create their own private army (e.g. SS, SA, KGB etc.) out of the Pantifa cadres… that’s always worked quite well for the Russian- and European totalitarians in the past.
Don’t think it would work that well with Americans, though.
